The Seductive Illusion of the Technology/Society Dichotomy
Gwenyth Jackaway, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Communication and Media Studies
Fordham University
“The history of media is never more or less than a history of their uses, which always lead us away from them to the social practices and conflicts they illustrate”.
--Dr. Carolyn Marvin, When Old Technologies were New, Oxford: (1988)
“There is no good and evil, there is only power, and those too weak to seek it.”
--Lord Voldemort, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone (2001)
A young child, bending spoons, spoke to Neo: ''Do not try to bend the spoon—that's impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth.''
Neo asked him, "What truth?"
The child answered, "That there is no spoon."
Neo meditated on this. "There is no spoon."
The child continued: "Then you will see that it is not the spoon that bends—it is only yourself."
And Neo was enlightened.
--The Matrix, (1999)
For the past few weeks, we’ve been exploring the contrasting views of social and technological determinism. Ultimately, the debate is a spurious one… seeking the answer to who is ‘right’ leads one in a circle. It’s much like the nature/nurture debate. Does technology cause social change, acting upon us bringing about inevitable ‘effects’? Or do people use technologies as tools to bring about social change? Are we in charge, wielding tools like magic wands or swords, or are our machines more powerful than we are? We’ve been asking this question, in various ways, most likely, as long as we could ponder the nature of causality and our own place in the universe. In reflecting upon the locus of change, we are, ultimately, looking in the mirror. What we see, of course, can only be a reflection of our own priorities and assumptions. . These two theoretical perspectives, inevitably reflect the worldview of those who hold them. When we listen deeply to the two sides of the debate, we can hear age old issues resurfacing in new guise.
Contained within this debate are assumptions about human nature . Will humans use tools for good or for evil? Does the expansion of human knowledge, and therefore human power, lead us out of the garden, or into it? Are we naturally ‘good’ or naturally ‘evil’? Do we need liberation or taming? Which side is ultimately dominant – our animal lust for power and dominance, or our civilized capacity for cooperation and compassion? Given a new tool of power, how will we wield that power? It’s a tale as old as time, and we keep telling it, again and again. Each generation revisits these issues, despite the many versions of the story that have already been told. And perhaps that is as it must be. Only by living the questions can we arrive at our own answers.
In the weeks while we’ve been exploring these questions in our discussions, I’ve been watching films with my son: Harry Potter, Star Wars, The Lord of the Rings. Set in the past, in the future or in some other dimension, the stories remain the same. There is a special tool – a ring, a weapon, a wand… there is a special power – a magical force – which can be accessed and channeled by the one who wields the tool. But the tool, and the power that flows through it, can be used for good or for evil. And so, over and over these stories wrestle with the same basic question: will Frodo be engulfed by the dark powers of the ring he carries? Will Luke, with his light saber, be lured over to the ‘dark side’ of The Force? Will Harry, the young wizard, be able to use his wand to ward off Voldemort, or will he too be seduced by the dark arts?
Perhaps it is no accident that often the dark force is in the hands of someone older – a dark father figure… and the hope for the light is in the hands of the younger hero. Maybe that too is as it must be. Hope for change often lies with the next generation. Perhaps that reflects our optimistic side…. If we just have the right tools… in the right hands…. Twitter and facebook in the hands of 20 year old Egyptians…. But the same magic tool, in the wrong hands, can be used for evil. Hitler made very effective use of film and radio. Over the past 150 years, the United States helped to develop virtually all of the tools of modern electronic mass communication, thereby contributing to an exponential expansion of access to information for people around the world. More information is not always better information however, and there are ways in which we’ve misused these technologies, at times doing more harm than good. Communication technologies are tools of power, and there are always temptations to abuse power. As we were watching the television coverage of the celebrations in the streets of Cairo, my son asked: “Will they still be that happy next week?” It’s a good question. Once the revolutionaries become the authorities, will they continue to use social media to liberate?
Technological determinism is an appealing perspective, especially, perhaps for those who have a fundamental distrust in human nature. By locating power in the machine it seems to absolve us of responsibility for its use. We can ‘blame the box’, and not ourselves. Conversely, by investing power in technology, then all we need to solve current problems is the right invention. This perspective places all of the ‘power’ to create change in the machine, and ignores human agency. It allows people to credit or blame any ‘effects’ of the technology on the machine itself. Then when the technology goes out of control (as it does in much of our science fiction) it’s not really our fault. While it might be tempting for some to see technology as a magic ‘pill’ or magic ‘bullet’, the problem with this position is, of course, that tools don’t do anything on their own. Even today, when robotic technology has become so advanced, machines can’t think on their own. A hammer can be used to build or destroy. A printing press can be a tool of liberation or a tool of propaganda. Social networking can be used to organize a revolution or to bully a teenager.
Social determinism is not necessarily more optimistic however. Taking the position that it is people, not technology who are ‘in charge’ and ultimately responsible for any effects does not ‘solve’ the problem. In fact, if anything, it forces us to look deeper into the mirror. Given the complexities of human nature, and the ongoing struggle in which we seem to be engaged regarding the proper use of our power, it should come as no surprise that the uses of our technologies inevitably reflect the priorities and values of those wielding the tool. We can make horrible choices in the use of our technologies, and the dark side of technological innovation is often in its use to serve the very human traits of greed and aggression. It also may be true that certain tools may ‘bring out’ or tempt the ‘darker’ sides of our nature. There is, after all, only one way to use a nuclear bomb.
Perhaps, as with the nature/nurture debate, we are missing the point by wondering if we or our technologies are in charge. Do we make the media? Or do they make us? The answer, to each question, appears to be: yes. Maybe on this issue, as is so often the case in the West, we are blinded by our preference for clear-cut dichotomies: We want to believe that things are either good or evil, that there is one clear truth, one clear path. We believe in the simplicity of scientific mechanism – a linear relationship of cause and effect. But its likely that reality is far more complex. Perhaps, as the wisdom of the East suggests, apparent polarities of Yin and Yang are ever interconnected, one flowing into the other. What appears evil from one side may appear good from the other. In the end, perhaps it is not by changing our tools, but by shifting our perspectives that we will ultimately be liberated.
GLJ, 2/13/11
No comments:
Post a Comment